Global warming commercial
- Thread starter pat-rickdaigle
- Start date
Ban11
Active member
get fucking educated...not by what politicians tell you, but by looking at the facts; hard data, scientific research, paleo-ecological proxy data, etc. connect the dots for yourself. anybody who is educated on the subject understands the reality of the situation. if you think that global warming is a myth, or that it may exist but humans are not major contributers to it, you have simply not been educated on the matter from an objective, scientific perspective.
whattheshit
Active member
actually the consequences of global warming in the north means less ice but more snow, additionally some regions are cooling while others are warming. stop crying everyone.
Armada+ar5
Member
what are we talking about?
LostCarKeys
Active member
I am scared, (hold me)
BillyGoteMan
Active member
Okay anybody have any solutions?
Wind, water, solar, are in my opinion the best solutions. No byproducts, renewable, what more do you want.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of hydrogen power. Sure its byproduct is water, thats terrific. But the easiest way to make hydrogen is by electrolysis, the electricity coming from coal and such.
Nuclear could work, with the exception of that whole nuclear waste thing.
I'm a big believer in good old oil. Cars are getting better and better gas milage. And oil is more renewable than you would think. Thermal depolymerization is what it's all about. We have the technology to break down waste products with extreme heat and pressure into oil products. We should be all over this. It would yeild so much energy from the waste which we just bury in the earth anyway. Check out the facts on it on wikipedia right quick.
Wind, water, solar, are in my opinion the best solutions. No byproducts, renewable, what more do you want.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of hydrogen power. Sure its byproduct is water, thats terrific. But the easiest way to make hydrogen is by electrolysis, the electricity coming from coal and such.
Nuclear could work, with the exception of that whole nuclear waste thing.
I'm a big believer in good old oil. Cars are getting better and better gas milage. And oil is more renewable than you would think. Thermal depolymerization is what it's all about. We have the technology to break down waste products with extreme heat and pressure into oil products. We should be all over this. It would yeild so much energy from the waste which we just bury in the earth anyway. Check out the facts on it on wikipedia right quick.
gregor
Active member
Also government planning departments need to have an environmentalist approach to city layout and building design and force developers to make green buildings. They use way way way more energy than transport systems anyway and its a piece of piss to make a totally carbon neutral house.
gregor
Active member
But there are thousands more cars on the road around the world everyday.
Sloar power is getting there, but the energy required to make them is still too high. (Like 15 years to catch up on energy saved). Wind power is good if huge off shore wind farms are put up. Nuclear is the way forward at the moment, to meet our needs properly. But we wouldn't even need it if we just use less energy.
Sloar power is getting there, but the energy required to make them is still too high. (Like 15 years to catch up on energy saved). Wind power is good if huge off shore wind farms are put up. Nuclear is the way forward at the moment, to meet our needs properly. But we wouldn't even need it if we just use less energy.
MLB
Active member
Man you know nothing.....i live in the north....LIVE HERE. THERE IS LESSS........and i repeat for the stupid people......LESS snow year after year. Concervatives be fucked, come ride up in northern Canada...in Onatrio...Quebec....the rockies.....you will find out how much permafrost is melting.
whattheshit
Active member
okay. and i quote from my environmental text book from my university course.
"The scientific consensus is that the effects of climate change will be most evident at high latitudes in the form of increases in winter temperature and snowfall as well as reductions in the extent and thickness of sea ice. Gradually, arctic will be transformed into sub arctic; animals, ice edges, and other boundaries will shift."
Yes permafrost is melting, but there is also a thing called the water cycle and increased temperature faciliates evaporation, which is then fallen in the form of rain or snow depending on seasonal temperatures.
Additionally what heath said is correct. There has been research recently conducted that the arctic region once had a climate of todays Flordia. Thus, the worlds climate does work on a climate that is similar to that of a radio wave. Although there is proof that from the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1790 when we harnessed the strength of coal which emits 3.1 kg of carbon gas for every 1 kg of solid coal used. This means that the radio wave theory would reach high points on the y-axis, but no matter what we do it won't change the earths natural cycle.
"The scientific consensus is that the effects of climate change will be most evident at high latitudes in the form of increases in winter temperature and snowfall as well as reductions in the extent and thickness of sea ice. Gradually, arctic will be transformed into sub arctic; animals, ice edges, and other boundaries will shift."
Yes permafrost is melting, but there is also a thing called the water cycle and increased temperature faciliates evaporation, which is then fallen in the form of rain or snow depending on seasonal temperatures.
Additionally what heath said is correct. There has been research recently conducted that the arctic region once had a climate of todays Flordia. Thus, the worlds climate does work on a climate that is similar to that of a radio wave. Although there is proof that from the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1790 when we harnessed the strength of coal which emits 3.1 kg of carbon gas for every 1 kg of solid coal used. This means that the radio wave theory would reach high points on the y-axis, but no matter what we do it won't change the earths natural cycle.
MLB
Active member
Yeah....dude....open your eyes...just use common intuition. " Sure we pump out millions of CFC, Gas exhaust, Diesel exhaust, Coal byproduct, and other toxic gases into our atmosphere and nothing will happen. This is all natural."
If it says in a book that technically if you drink acid you schould not die because people " THINK" that it will not have an effect......will you drink the acid. Of course not.
Dude do you own fucking research.....form your own opinions. Plus what harm will come from lowering emissions.....seriously.....less smog deaths, better air quality......better quality of life. Must suck having someone's hand up your ass controling what you say/do.......like a pupet.
If it says in a book that technically if you drink acid you schould not die because people " THINK" that it will not have an effect......will you drink the acid. Of course not.
Dude do you own fucking research.....form your own opinions. Plus what harm will come from lowering emissions.....seriously.....less smog deaths, better air quality......better quality of life. Must suck having someone's hand up your ass controling what you say/do.......like a pupet.
whattheshit
Active member
i think you're just mad that you don't have a rebutall to what i said.
secondly i never said it is natural to pump ghg's into our atmosphere. practice your reading comprehension.
and your acid analogy is rather poor.
its common sense that acid would kill you.
the concept of higher temperatures facilitating evaporation while leading to loss of ice is common sense.
quite frankly i don't have the time or energy to argue this. so fuck off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/science/earth/31cnd-climate.html?ex=1306728000&en=456787587521b3e6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
secondly i never said it is natural to pump ghg's into our atmosphere. practice your reading comprehension.
and your acid analogy is rather poor.
its common sense that acid would kill you.
the concept of higher temperatures facilitating evaporation while leading to loss of ice is common sense.
quite frankly i don't have the time or energy to argue this. so fuck off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/science/earth/31cnd-climate.html?ex=1306728000&en=456787587521b3e6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
MLB
Active member
Look you elitest piece of shit. What harm will it cause to stop polution.....seriously. That is my rebuttle......answer me that. Soo we naturaly cause massive amounts of emissions....from where...farts. Please.
Is it soo hard to switch to biodiesel.....hell it is soo much cheeper then patrolium fuels.
This is what your saying....that people can go on drving their massive hummers, and and trucks.....and nothing will happen.
But look at smog....not this does come from us. This kills 1000 people a year.
This is wrong no matter what you presious book says......open your own eyes. Ohh btw....come up here up north with your little book and i will be happy to prove you wrong.
Is it soo hard to switch to biodiesel.....hell it is soo much cheeper then patrolium fuels.
This is what your saying....that people can go on drving their massive hummers, and and trucks.....and nothing will happen.
But look at smog....not this does come from us. This kills 1000 people a year.
This is wrong no matter what you presious book says......open your own eyes. Ohh btw....come up here up north with your little book and i will be happy to prove you wrong.